Giving teeth to enforcement of The Laws

[Tallyrand]

I find that conclusion shortsighted. If the GM informs the group of his intentions(i.e., to compel for death on every attack made with weapon ratings greater than 3 or something) and enforces this consistently, then more reasonable possibilities are:

1) All players who don't want to accidentally kill the wrong person will keep a fate point in reserve to ensure that they'll never suffer the consequences of accidentally killing their targets while still using full force.

2) The players start using attacks with lower weapon ratings whenever they're up against something they don't want to accidentally kill.

3) They do neither and accept the resulting consequences.

Sure, but that in effect is no different than my argument, it simply provides the players with different type of buy out option.

If the player of a wizard character decides to go ahead and use high weapon rating magical attacks on a mortal without having a fate point in reserve, they know what the consequences are and accept them. Alternately, if said player has fate points to spare, they can go ahead and use maximum force without worries, because they plan on narratively enforcing their desired outcome(by using a fate point).

It's that simple.

[sinker]

I grew up in AD&D.

Then you should have always been expecting your character to die. That's not surprise. Hell, did you put on pants? If yes then you were already tangling with death.

[Vine]

Then you should have always been expecting your character to die. That's not surprise. Hell, did you put on pants? If yes then you were already tangling with death.

Pretty fair.

[Tbora]

Well I know I have atleast one high powered spell that would not be fatal in pretty much any circumstance.

A spirit invocation that induces sensory deprivation as a result, basically it makes you blind, deaf, mute, unable to smell or actively feel something with the sense of touch.Sort of overloading the senses causing them to fail temporarily (or not). Alternatively you could say this sensory overload causes blackout easily enough too.

We see something exactly like this with Molly's One Woman Rave spell (if less complete in its effects).

[Tallyrand]

I can agree with you on this. However it seems like you're arguing that all weapon:4 and higher attacks are always lethal (For example your earlier argument about Agatha seems to be stating that all sleep spells higher than weapon:4 are lethal). If we're misunderstanding you I apologize. I'd just like to point out that I'm not the only one who appears to have this misconception.

You are misunderstanding me I think, but in a reasonable way.  If you take someone out by a Weapon: 3 or greater attack there is the potential that you will kill them whether or not you intended to in my game (and I believe this is approximately the intent of the rule system).  Specifically in my game, if you go more than 2-4 stress over their track and consequences with an attack like that I will likely enforce a death effect.

Sounds like you need to meet some better players. As a player I personally have taken Lawbreaker voluntarily. It was dramatic and very fun for all.

It hasn't even come up in my game yet, I just feel it's important to have a clear understanding with your group before it becomes a problem.  In so far as Volunteering to take Law Breaker, I'm sure that my players would do so, they're that sort.  What they wouldn't do though is voluntarily take it when it would make their character an NPC unless they were planning on getting rid of the character anyway.  Where this ruling is of specific note is when it's a matter of life or death (effectively) for the character.  I feel that ruling that it should never come to that would be like ruling that characters cannot die in combat, it takes out what I feel is a very important level of risk that I think the game designers intended to be present.

The biggest reason I'm so passionate about this is due to the scenario brought up by the OP. I have seen this kind of thing in action. It almost always leads to schisms in gaming groups, and the death of friendships. Regardless of the circumstances if you are not honest and straightforward about this kind of issue it will become a problem.

"Surprise your character is dead" is never a good solution to any problem. It just leads to hurt feelings.

Right, which is why I think it should never be a surprise and that it should be an easy to remember hard rule that your table agrees to live by.  The only options other than a real rule is that it's impossible (which as I've stated removes something I think is very important from the game) or it's arbitrary.

[Steppenwolf]

True, but when the "In your game' sections warn the players about the dangers accidentally killing that strongly suggests that it's possible for the players to accidentally kill.

Sure, it's possible.
Let's say we play Harry Dresden who has the Aspect "The building was on fire and it wasn't my fault"

He throws his big fire spell with a Weapon: 6 value and takes out all the mortal thugs without killing them but leaving horrible burns and scars.

As a GM you can always compel the aspect to let the warehouse catch fire and tell to the player: "well you used such a lot of power the warehouse is burning and the poor thugs who cannot move by themselves are going to be fully roasted".

[sinker]

It hasn't even come up in my game yet, I just feel it's important to have a clear understanding with your group before it becomes a problem.

Agreed.

[Tallyrand]

Well I know I have atleast one high powered spell that would not be fatal in pretty much any circumstance.

A spirit invocation that induces sensory deprivation as a result, basically it makes you blind, deaf, mute, unable to smell or actively feel something with the sense of touch.Sort of overloading the senses causing them to fail temporarily (or not). Alternatively you could say this sensory overload causes blackout easily enough too.

We see something exactly like this with Molly's One Woman Rave spell (if less complete in its effects).

Again this seems to me more like a maneuver than an attack, I would place it at a highish TN due to the effect, but then simply compel the target whenever they would try to do something they reasonable couldn't.  I mean, an Extreme even just a severe consequence can stay with a character for years, shutting someones senses down to the extent that they couldn't react for that long very well may kill them.

[Tallyrand]

Sure, it's possible.
Let's say we play Harry Dresden who has the Aspect "The building was on fire and it wasn't my fault"

He throws his big fire spell with a Weapon: 6 value and takes out all the mortal thugs without killing them but leaving horrible burns and scars.

As a GM you can always compel the aspect to let the warehouse catch fire and tell to the player: "well you used such a lot of power the warehouse is burning and the poor thugs who cannot move by themselves are going to be fully roasted".

Right, and in that situation you're now telling your player "Ok, so despite there not being a real rule about it I've decided to make your character an NPC because you have this aspect' (or alternatively "Ok, so now because you have this aspect give me a fate chip or your can't play your character anymore").

I think that may way is much less likely to cause your players to quit the game in a rage.

[Tbora]

Right, which is why I think it should never be a surprise and that it should be an easy to remember hard rule that your table agrees to live by.  The only options other than a real rule is that it's impossible (which as I've stated removes something I think is very important from the game) or it's arbitrary.

Thing is most players will not want to be in (and in turn not play in, if your the GM) games where their characters are nerfed so heavily, especially when your investing so much refresh into the powers to begin with. If you were to insist on that House Rule (as I think your hard and fast ruling would basically be just that) I would say that giving a +1 refresh rebate would be only fair as a result for you handicapping those players so heavily when they /are/ paying for them full cost.

Again this seems to me more like a maneuver than an attack, I would place it at a highish TN due to the effect, but then simply compel the target whenever they would try to do something they reasonable couldn't.  I mean, an Extreme even just a severe consequence can stay with a character for years, shutting someones senses down to the extent that they couldn't react for that long very well may kill them.

Don't matter, the way the Lawbreakers are written is that you have to directly kill them with magic for it to be an LB. Thats why setting fire to a building and them dying is a no no, but binding them in place and cutting their heads off with a sword is not.If they die because its a secondary effect (walk in front of a speeding car for example) then no LB, but if you were to say cut their parachute, or blast them with flame you do get it.

[bitterpill]

Tallyrand you seem to have a concept that something has to be either an attack or a manouvre whereas there are plenty of things that could be seen as both take for example throwing something at peoples eyes this could be a manouvre to inflict the  temporary blinded aspect or it could be an attack which will have blind as an extreme concequence the exact same effects could be done with a spirit bright light attack or manouvre.  

[Steppenwolf]

Right, and in that situation you're now telling your player "Ok, so despite there not being a real rule about it I've decided to make your character an NPC because you have this aspect' (or alternatively "Ok, so now because you have this aspect give me a fate chip or your can't play your character anymore").

I think that may way is much less likely to cause your players to quit the game in a rage.

Nope, cause the thugs are not dead yet.
You are giving him a choice to save them, extinguishing the fire.

This can bring to interesting situations:
let's suppose the BBG is escaping with the MCGuffin and the main purpose of the thugs is to let him put a safe distance between the wizard and him (and the not-so-secondary purpose to end the PC's miserable life).

Do the character choose to run after the BBG and to be a LawBreaker or to save the thugs and his soul, but giving the BBG an advantage?

[Tallyrand]

Thing is most players will not want to be in (and in turn not play in, if your the GM) games where their characters are nerfed so heavily, especially when your investing so much refresh into the powers to begin with. If you were to insist on that House Rule (as I think your hard and fast ruling would basically be just that) I would say that giving a +1 refresh rebate would be only fair as a result for you handicapping those players so heavily when they /are/ paying for them full cost.

Yes, this is a house rule, as is saying that killing accidentally is impossible, as I've said several times before, neither is supported directly by the rules.

I don't think it's nerfed at all.  Evocation and Thaumaturgy are IMO inarguably the most potent expenditure of refresh in the game, and I think that the risk of law breaking is something that does a good job balancing them.  A wizard, without any obvious weapons and without preperation can throw a Weapon: 2 attack over a zone, that's the equivalent of shooting everyone in the area with a pistol.  That's VERY powerful and something that pretty much only Wizards can do and can do so with no chance of becoming a law breaker.  Alternatively when not dealing with a mortal a Wizard can throw a Weapon: 5 attack or higher at one or multiple targets at range with is something only replication perhaps by a super strong character throwing a truck, and again he can do this without preparation and completely by surprise.

If I was playing with a group who would not play unless Wizards were even more powerful, I probably wouldn't want to play with that group anyway to be perfectly honest.

Don't matter, the way the Lawbreakers are written is that you have to directly kill them with magic for it to be an LB. Thats why setting fire to a building and them dying is a no no, but binding them in place and cutting their heads off with a sword is not.If they die because its a secondary effect (walk in front of a speeding car for example) then no LB, but if you were to say cut their parachute, or blast them with flame you do get it.

I disagree, and again I think that the designers disagree as well.  If pushing someone off a building is sufficiently direct to gain lawbreaker, then lighting that building of fires is so as well.

[Tallyrand]

Tallyrand you seem to have a concept that something has to be either an attack or a manouvre whereas there are plenty of things that could be seen as both take for example throwing something at peoples eyes this could be a manouvre to inflict the  temporary blinded aspect or it could be an attack which will have blind as an extreme concequence the exact same effects could be done with a spirit bright light attack or manouvre.  

The same action can certainly be seen as both, but any given action is one or the other by the rules.  The primary difference in my argument being that a Maneuver never risks accidentally killing while an attack can.  Also a maneuver produces an effect that can last no more than a scene, while an attack can produce an effect that can last for years or be permanent.

[Tallyrand]

Nope, cause the thugs are not dead yet.
You are giving him a choice to save them, extinguishing the fire.

This can bring to interesting situations:
let's suppose the BBG is escaping with the MCGuffin and the main purpose of the thugs is to let him put a safe distance between the wizard and him (and the not-so-secondary purpose to end the PC's miserable life).

Do the character choose to run after the BBG and to be a LawBreaker or to save the thugs and his soul, but giving the BBG an advantage?

But in the situation where the character has only one refresh it isn't a choice, that's what I'm saying.  A compel should ALWAYS be a choice (saving of course those situations where the character is without Fate chips).  When you're giving the player the choice of 'Save the thugs or become an NPC' what you're really doing is railroading them into saving the thugs.